Linked notes have opened up a lot of great possibilities. How can we level up the links? Notes can be thought of as a page or a block or whatever core entity you like, though perhaps it would be simpler if there was only Unify blocks and pages in Logseq|one type. Here follows a theory of notes (perhaps based on a theory of knowledge, who knows).

In a linked note taking, there are two basic types of objects: note and link.

A note is an atomic idea. A link exists in a note, and refers to another note. A note can be a file, a “block”, or some other basic entity. In linked note software, a link is usually denoted by brackets: [[A Note]].

In a thorough note system, everything can be represented by a note. We can have notes that aggregate other notes, notes for people, notes for places, notes for days, an image can be a note, a tag can be a note, a note can describe the note structure, etc.

What if links could be notes too?

# Claim 1
This claim is supported by [[Observation A]]

# Claim 1
[[supported by]]->[[Observation A]]

Then everything can become a Note, and I am thinking of a Note essentially as a function.

func [[A Cool New Idea]] -> (contents of [[A Cool New Idea]])

Whenever the arrow -> is used directly between two links, this indicates that the link before the arrow is describing the link after the arrow.

Right to left processing, so

[[Unsure]] -> [[Supports]] -> [[Observation 1]] -> [[Claim A]]

becomes

([[Certainty/High]] -> 
	([[Supports]] -> 
		([[Observation 1]] -> 
			([[Claim A]])
		)
	)
)

both of which essentially mean:
I am highly certain that observation 1 supports claim A
(sidenote: not sure you would want to have a certainty link specifically)

More Examples

[[Idea B]] -> [[Isomorphic]] -> [[Idea A]]

does this order make sense?

[[Philosophy]] -> [[is-a]] -> [[Type]]

means Philosophy is a Type

[[Type]] -> [[Philosophy]]

means this note is of type Philosophy, kind of like running

[[Type]]() {
return [[Philosophy]]
}

[[Claim A]] <- [[Supports]]

([[Observation 1]] -> [[Supports]] -> [[Claim A]]) -> [[Unsure]]

so let’s try the function write out:

[[Unsure]]([[supports]]([[Observation 1]]) { return [[Claim A]] }) {
return true
}

[[supports]]([[Observation 1]]) {
return [[Claim A]]
}

so here I’m saying “I’m unsure that Observation 1 supports Claim A.”

vs

[[Observation 1]] -> [[Supports]] -> [[Claim A]] -> [[Unsure]]

which means

[[Unsure]]([[Claim A]]) {
return true
}

[[Supports]]([[Observation 1]]) {

}

and here I’m saying “Observation 1 supports that I’m unsure about Claim A.”

Indents help make this clearer

- Observation 1
- -> [[Supports]] -> [[Claim A]]
- -> [[Unsure]]

= “I’m unsure that Observation 1 supports Claim A.”

vs

- Claim A
- -> [[Unsure]]
- <- [[Supports]] <- [[Observation 1]]

= “Observation 1 supports that I’m unsure about Claim A.” (assuming arrows can be done in both directions)

x -> y -> z means, given x, return y, and given y and x, return z. If there is no note link in front of the ->, then the current note is implied. The last note in the chain is always implied to end with a -> true

how to equate inverses?

[[Supports]] [[Inverse]] [[Supported By]]

Woah.. this could change the game.. Now we are creating a n-order mathematical group / ring / field?. Where instead of two operations (+ and *) with inverses, where each element is also a possible operation, and we can have n operations. Thus we can have n operations…

[[Observation A]] -> [[Supports]] -> 
- (all blocks x where [[Observation A]] -> [[Supports]] -> x)
- (also, due to inverse definition, all blocks x where x -> [[Supported By]] -> [[Observation A]])

Special Functions

Syntax

Claim A

Hayao Miyazaki

Ideas from category theory

Logseq specifics

How to query?

More Thoughts

References